In England, the tenants are in comfortable and respectable circumstances; many of them are wealthy; they are industriousand knowing cultivators; and in respect of morals, they are scarcely equalled by any class in the community. Their own excellent morals have the best effects upon those of their servants. In Ireland the tenants of the absentees are poor and barbarous; they are wretched cultivators; and they are vicious and depraved. In England it is a thing almost unknown, for the tenant of a great landlord, if he only occupy a cottage, to be immoral, or to be concerned in a criminal action. The Irish papers frequently tell us, that in Ireland the occupiers of pretty large tracts of land are often concerned in those horrible outrages which almost daily disgrace the sister kingdom, and that the whole country population combines to screen from justice the perpetrators of these outrages. Nevertheless, the Philosopher assures us, that, in a moral point of view, Ireland loses very little from its landlords being absentees. Wonderful Philosopher! He assures us farther, that absenteeism is not the cause of the middlemen system; and that the number of middlemen would not be materially diminished if there were no absentees. Of course, if a landlord dwell on his estate, he will let it to a middleman for a trifling rent; he will content himself with a much smaller income than he might obtain when the cultivators will have to pay much higher rents than he would demand; he will make himself a mere cipher on his estate, and amidst his tenants; he will suffer this middleman to parcel out and manage his land, and tyrannize over his tenants at pleasure; he will give to this middleman the sole control over his estate and tenants ;he will do all this in preference to having his estate and tenants entirely under his management and authority. The most finished Cockney that Cockaigne can produce, would hardly swallow such philosophy. Once more we say-Wonderful onderful Ph Philosopher! Absenteeism, and not the want of capital, is the primary cause of the middleman system. No resident landlord will give to another person the control of his estate, and the dignity and influence which it yields him, the more especially as he can always procure an agent to take off his hands the laborious part of the management. Agricultural capital cannot exist with middlemen and per centage agents. Where these people find any, they speedily dissipate it; and where they find none, they effectually prevent any from being created. In the last thirty years, England has been increasing the size of its farms, and making immense additions to its agricultural capital. In the same period, and with nearly the same markets, Ireland has been regularly diminishing the size of its farms and the amount of its agricultural capital. Were the land of England placed under middlemen and per centage agents, very few of our next generation of farmers would possess sufficient capital for the cultivation of a farm of one hundred and fifty acres. Mr M'Culloch stated it to be his belief, that if we had sheriff-courts like those of Scotland, and if the estates were managed by agents like those who manage the estates of the Scotch absentees, England would gain by the absence of the great proportion of the land proprietors. Most delicious intelligence this would be to you, ye proud landholders of England! You are not merely useless-you are an evil to your country! Richly did you deserve the insult for bringing such a man before you. England, beloved land of our fathers! If thy nobles and country gentlemen leave thee to dwell constantly abroad-if thy country magistrates consist of pennyless, pert, place-hunting lawyers-if thy Ministry and two Houses of Parliament be composed of traders, weavers, lawyers, and philosophers; of such men as Alderman Wood, Alderman Waithman, Peter Moore, Joseph Hume, SIR R. Wilson, Mr Brougham, and Mr M'Culloch, it will cause thy interests to be far better managed. If thy village population be taken from the control of generous, high-minded noblemen and gentlemen, who are under the most powerful restraints for exercising their influence and authority in the most beneficial manner, and be placed under that of low-bred, mercenary people, almost wholly free from restrictions in the exercise of their despotic power, it will benefit the interests and character of this population. If the many millions of rent which are paid to thy landholders be sent to foreign countries to return no more to be expended in employing the labour and promoting the commerce and manufactures of these countries, instead of thy own, it will increase thy wealth and prosperity. What pension wilt thou award, and how many statues of gold wilt thou decree, to the astonishing Philosopher? Seriously-does it not surpass all comprehension, that a man who seems not to have been stark-mad-who is evidently as destitute of passion and enthusiasm as a flint-should have uttered such absurdities? They not only outrage common sense, but they fly in the teeth of the most decisive demonstration. A single glance from Ireland to England is sufficient to cover them with derision. We thank those who put questions to Mr M'Culloch like that touching the seven-eighths of the landed proprietors. They spurred him up to the very climax of nonsense; they made him stretch the cobweb of his philosophy, until he tore it to tatters; they constrained him to hold up his own doctrines to the ridicule of the most ignorant. After what we have said, we need not enter into any long refutation of the Economist's doctrine, that, if the English absentees who now dwell in France, were to dwell at home, it would make no difference to England. Here again we have practically the assumption that we send to these absentees their incomes in precisely the commodities which they consume; and, moreover, that we send them taxed commodities-our taxed wine, tea, &c. &c. From the prohibitory system of France, these absentees scarcely add a shilling's worth to our exports of commodities; their incomes are sent them in money, and this constantly does more or less injury to the trade of this country, looking only at the exchanges. Many of them draw their incomes from our taxes; these incomes are raised in precisely the same way in their absence that they would be raised in should they dwell at home; and they are exclusively expended in employing French tradesmen, mechanics, and labourers, and contributing to the French revenue. Many of these incomes are practically paid in this manner. A sum of money is taken from our exchequer, and sent to France in bills; immediately afterwards gold has to be sent to, in effect, take up the bills. If the incomes of these absentees were regu larly sent them by coach and packet in hard sovereigns, it would be much the same to this country as their present mode of transmission. We will assume that there are two officers who receive annually from the taxes of this country three hundred pounds each. The one dwells in England, the other in France. Every one knows, that when their incomes are paid, that of the one has operated in its raising, exactly like that of the other, on the industry, &c. of the country. Well, these incomes are paid in sovereigns; the one takes his sovereigns to his dwelling in England; those of the other are in effect sent him by coach and boat to France, for he consumes, by his residence in France, scarcely any of the few commodities which it imports from England. The one who dwells in England immediately expends his sovereigns in employing the English farmer, ploughman, miller, merchant, sailor, grocer, tailor, weaver, &c. &c. He consumes many commodities that are heavily taxed; he occupies a house which pays house and window duty, and of course no small part of his income returns back to the exchequer; he pays poor's rates, and thus contributes to support the poor of his country. But the one who dwells in France, employs only the farmer, &c. &c. of France; he contributes only to the revenue of France; his expenditure, compared with that of the other, is so much clear gain to France, and dead loss to England. Yet in the face of this, Mr M'Culloch asserts that it makes no difference to England whether its absentees dwell at home or in France. Many of the Economists make a great uproar in favour of consumption; they maintain that everything possible should be done to promote it; but here is this wonderful Philosopher confounding production with consumption, and declaring, that if ninetenths of the consumption of this country were annihilated, it would produce no public evil. Such stuff is not worthy the name of paradox; it is silly nonsense, that would disgrace the most ignorant hind in the country. We blush to think that it needs refutation-our cheeks burn with shame when we reflect that it has been listened to by the Parliament of England. The present is called an enlightened age, and this is a portion of the light. Men like Mr M'Culloch are the exclusively " enlightened;" they are the only people who have emancipated themselves from " prejudices," and who are infallible; they are the only men who have escaped from the "ignorance and bigotry" of past ages-who have outstripped all in the "march of intellect"-and who have rendered themselves even too wise and knowing for the times they live in; they are the people to laugh to scorn the founders of England's freedom, prosperity, happiness, and greatness; and to be entrusted with the subversion or alteration of everything valuable in the empire. Ye "thinking people" of England, what opinion must be entertained of you by posterity? We are not quite so much infatuated with " economics" as Mr M'Culloch, and therefore we must say something more touching these English absentees, before we take our leave of them. When men, merely for the sake of pleasure or some trifling pecuniary saving, abandon their country to dwell constantly in a foreign one, we think the abandonment should be mutual. We think their country should cast them off, when they cast off their country. These mongrels, who are neither fish nor flesh, who are neither English nor French, who, instead of sympathizing with, and benefitting their country, rob and injure it, and who proclaim by their conduct that they prefer another to it, these persons certainly ought not to be placed on a level with the resident population. Some brand should be fixed upon them, by deprivation of privileges, or other means, to hold up their want of English feeling to the scorn of the nation. Many of them, we believe, hold commissions in the army and navy. Now we ask if a man, who has from choice dwelt many years in France, or any other foreign country; who has from choice been for these years cut off from all personal intercourse with his countrymen, be a fit and proper person to hold authority in a ship of war or in the army? We ask if such a man can be expected to have that love of country-those genuine British feelings which are essential in all who wear the British uniform? It ought to be a condition with all who draw their incomes from the public purse, that they should dwell constantly in this country, when not called from it by public service. We must now turn to the Philosopher's doctrine, that "almost all great improvements in every country, have originated among merchants and manufacturers." Mr M'Culloch and his economic brethren are people who cannot possibly see the whole of anything. Question them touching a watch, and they will tell you that the interior works are useless, and that the dial is alone valuable. Ask them respecting a horse, and they will say that the legs and back are alone useful, and that the bowels are a positive nuisance. To improve machinery, they would destroy the moving power; to coin a farthing they would waste a guinea; to build a jolly-boat, they would pull to pieces a seventy-four; to make some paltry canal that would scarcely float a washing-tub, they would fill up the ocean. They cannot see that agriculture forms part of a whole along with manufactures and commerce. Oh, no! agriculture is the nuisance-agriculture is the pestilence by which manufactures and commerce are blasted. Ruin the agriculturists, ye merchants and manufacturers-deprive them of the means of buying your goods-and then you will flourish! Glorious times will ye have, ye importers, when the chief part of consumption shall be annihilated -a prodigious increase of trade ye will gain, yemanufacturers, by selling one hundred thousand pounds worth of goods less at home, in order to sell ten thousand pounds' worth more abroad. philosophic The antipathy of the Economists to the landed interest does not, however, proceed altogether from a wish to benefit manufactures and commerce.The country gentlemen keep the magistracy from the hands of phil lawyers; the farmers and husbandry labourers cannot well be reached to be filled with "liberal ideas." The landed interest weighs very heavily in Parliament against the new philosophy; it forms a mighty impediment to the "liberalizing," or, in other words, to the subverting of our laws and institutions. Its consent is necessary, and it will not give it, to enable the Philosophers to pull to pieces the monarchy. Here is the sore. Here is the cause why it is so desirable for the landholders to dwell out of the country, and why agriculture is so worthless, compared with commerce and manufactures. With regard to improvements, let us glance at the history of this country. We apprehend that in respect to wealth, as, well as other things, it is very necessary for a nation to have a good constitution, and good laws. Now with whom did our constitution and laws originate-with the landed interest, or the merchants and manufacturers? Who shed their blood like water to found the glorious structure under which we live? The owners and cultivators of the soil, or history is only fable. We read of the worthy traders of London and other parts being in former times amazingly obsequious to the government, but not of their sacrificing life and property for law and freedom. Once indeed the trading interests of this country did in a great degree get up a revolution in opposition to the landed interest; they triumphed, and what then? They established a military despotism. We are indebted principally to the landed interest for our constitution and laws. When we look at other nations, we cannot see that any of them has been indebted to its traders for a good system of government. The revolutions of France, Spain, &c. got up as they chiefly were by the inhabitants of towns, were neither wise in principle, nor fruitful of benefit. In the Americas, the brunt of the struggle seems to have been borne by the men of the soil. Commerce and manufactures owe their origin to the landed interest, and they cannot exist without it. Whatever wealth they may accumulate, they draw from it the chief portion. Why do not the agriculturists accumulate large fortunes like the merchants and manufacturers? Are they less industrious, less frugal, or less able in business? No such thing. The merchant and manufacturer are allowed to obtain the highest profit in their power, while the agriculturist is bound down to the lowest possible. If accident raise him to a level with them, laws are instantly resorted to, to bring him down again. They may charge him what they please, but he must charge them only what the government may suffer The greatest additions that were ever made to the wealth of this country were made to it during the war by the agriculturists, when nothing could be employed to prevent the latter from equalling the trading classes in profits. Neither this country, nor any other, was ever rich, when its landed interest was regularly poor; and, in spite of the merchants and manufacturers, if our landed interest be plunged into poverty, we shall soon cease to be a rich nation. It is ridiculous to ascribe the chief part of public wealth to those things which cannot exist without a landed interest, and which can scarcely contribute a shilling to this wealth without its assistance. Let us now look at other matters. Who have always been the chief patrons of literature and the arts? The great landholders. Who have always marched at the head of civilization and refinement? The great landholders. Who, by their profuse expenditure, have given the greatest stimulants to inventions and discoveries of every description? The great landholders. Reasoning on the question seems to be very useless when we look at Ireland. Here is a country, a large part of which has not in reality what is understood by the term, a landed interest. The landlords dwell abroad, and a very few of the cultivators are worthy of being called farmers. This part of Ireland is, to a very great extent, without commerce and manufactures, and it is poor, barbarous, and depraved: had it practically possessed. a landed interest, the case would undoubtedly have been perfectly diffe rent. We say this in favour of the agriculturists, merely on the defensive : far be it from us to undervalue the merchants and manufacturers. When we defend the former we likewise defend the latter. The three form a whole; their joint exertions as a whole, and not the separate ones of any of the parts, have rendered the country what it is. One of the parts may, however, be more valuable than the others; as a man's head, although it forms a part of his body, may be of, more worth than his legs or arms. Valuable as commerce and manufactures unquestionably are, agriculture is still more valuable. That is no new doctrine; for it has hitherto been held by all the first authorities of the country. To ruin agriculture for the benefit of commerce and manufactures would be the same, in our judgment, as to cut off a inan's head for the benefit of his legs and arms. And yet nothing less in these days is spoken of. If commerce and manufactures suffer such men as Mr M'Culloch to divide them from, and array them against their parent, they will soon bitterly lament it! We will now proceed to the question touching the revenue of Ireland. Why is the land of Ireland exempt ed from direct taxation? It has two or three distinct landlords to support, and then it is overloaded in the most fearful manner with cultivators. It has so many mouths and purses to provide for, that it cannot contribute anything to the Exchequer. Why is it in this condition? It is placed in it by absenteeism-by the very thing that the Philosopher asserts produces no evil to Ireland. If it had only its owners, and the number of cultivators requisite for its proper culture to support, it could then pay taxes like that of England. This might have been the case with it, had it been under the management of its owners during the war. The high prices would have given capital to the tenant, and the great demand for labour, and high wages in this country, would have taken off the surplus hands. nerally pays higher wages. The farmer, who is a great consumer, benefits the revenue infinitely beyond the amount of duty which is paid by what he consumes. He employs the village blacksmith, carpenter, tailor, &c.; he employs the producers and distributors of the commodities, and he thereby enables them to consume. In the examination, Scotland was brought into contrast with Ireland. Now, how stands the case with Scotland? Its land is not overrented, or overloaded with occupiers. The farmers are good consumers of taxed commodities, and by this they create a vast number of other consumers. Ireland, unlike England and Scotland, exports a large portion of its agricultural produce; its exports, to a great extent, consist of such produce which, as we have shown, causes the most trifling consumption of taxed commodities in its raising and shipment. The exports of Scotland consist chiefly of manufactured goods. These exports employ the agriculturists, who are in proportion far greater consumers of taxed commodities than the Irish agriculturists, and in addition they employ the manufacturers, traders, &c. who are very great consumers of such commodities. The exports of Ireland, to a large extent, employ the agriculturists alone. Now, if Ireland were like Scotland-if its land were not over-rented, and had no more than the requisite number of cultivators to maintain-and if it had a sufficient number of manufacturers, traders, &c. to consume the whole, or nearly the whole of its agricultural produce-how would this operate on the matter before us? The agriculturists, though greatly diminished in number, would consume about as many taxed commodities as they consume at present, and there would be an immense host of manufacturers, traders, &c. created to join them in such consumption. Ireland might then stand on a par with Scotland in its contributions to the revenue. Let us now turn to indirect taxation. A vast portion of the Irish cultivators, from the extortions of their various landlords, and the smallness of their allotments of land, can neither consume taxed commodities, nor employ those who do consume them. Let any man place before him two English farmers-the one paying a rackrent, and the other a very moderate one-and mark the difference between them in consumption. The consumption of the one in utensils is almost double that of the other. The one keeps his family well and respectably clothed; the other expends nothing in the clothing of his family beyond what is wrung from him by necessity. The one often has friends to visit him; he consumes much taxed liquor, tea, sugar, currants, spices, &c.: the other rarely has visitors; he lives principally on the plainest produce of his farm, and he expends the least possible in taxed commodities. The one employs more labourers than the other, and he ge--should regularly consume tea, suVOL, XIX. If the Irish peasantry should dwell in decent houses built by the regular builders should have these houses decently furnished by the regular makers of furniture-should keep themselves decently clad, in clothing supplied by the regular manufacturers and makers-should regularly burn coals K |